"To More Inmates, Life Term Means Dying Behind Bars"

Who knew?

Posted by: AllenS at October 2, 2005 9:50 AM

The NYTimes ran an op-ed decring real life terms a year or two ago. it is only a matter of time before they begin campaining to abolish life terms.

Another effect of having so many life-without prisoners is on prison life itself. With nothing to lose, they can prey upon others without fear and set themselves up as crime kingpins within the prison. I don't expect prisons to be pleasant places, but being raped, extorted and beaten while guards feign ignorance or lack of control is shameful.

One of the reasons that people resist using life without parole as a substitute for the death penalty is that we don't believe that the state will follow through. Here we see the beginnings of the movement to make "life without parole" mean "imprisoned until elderly." As, studied in a vacuum, it is clearly cruel and wasteful to keep elderly convicts in prison when they could be pushed into nursing homes on medicare/medicaid, this movement will undoubtedly win.

If life in prison is worse than capital punishment, why do so many prisoners (and their lawyers) fight so hard to avoid the chair?

Isn't this the same rag that proclaimed a couple of years ago that 'crime was down despite an increase in incarcerations'?

"Imprisoned until elderly"... hmmm... maybe we can cut a deal with the Kevorkian lobbyists and, instead of death sentences, have life sentences appended with assisted suicide. Then everyone's happy!

> "even in cases where judges and prosecutors did not intend to put them away forever"

A lawyer who signs something that says other than what he intends should lose his ticket.

[T]he United States has created [...] a booming population of prisoners whose only way out of prison is likely to be inside a coffin.

Good.
Because:

Just a few decades ago, a life sentence was often a misnomer, a way to suggest harsh punishment but deliver only 10 to 20 years.

Which was usually a miscarriage of justice.
Someone gets knifed to death by a junkie for their purse or wallet, and the killer is out in seven to ten years ?!?

Not harsh enough, in my book.
Nor in many people's:

But now, driven by tougher laws and political pressure on governors and parole boards, thousands of lifers are going into prisons each year, and in many states only a few are ever coming out...

The passage of tougher laws, and political pressure being effective, means that a majority (or a pretty big minority) of citizens in these states WANT harsher punishments than a ten-year "life sentence".

While I also recognize that harsher sentencing, and politicians attempting to look tough, (particularly with regards to drug laws), have created new problems and injustices, on the whole I applaud the trend.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 2, 2005 8:38 PM

One of the strongest arguments against capital punishment, and one rarely heard, is the emsculation of the prerogative of mercy (governor's pardon)through political and even legal surveillance and challenges. There are always going to be cases where the application of the law does not correspond to the general sense of moral outrage or sense of "just desserts". If you close off all escape, people are going to be left feeling morally soiled and the whole thing is undercut. It's the same problem with the three strikes rule or any effort to take discretion out of sentencing. In a sense, when liberal judges undermine the whole system, it can be a mistake to respond by going whole hog to remove their discretion rather than just replace them with better judges.

If pure humanitarianism drives you, because you think life imprisonment is worse than captial punishment, then the logical arguments are: improve prison conditions, or give prisoners the choice. Humanitarianism, my eye.

I've come across it many times, but I still can't fathom how so many people can hold simultaneously these two views:

1) the law and its enforcers are, by and large, incompetent asses
2) those asses should be given the ultimate power of life and death.

Brit:

Ah, a death penalty oppopnent has to justify his preference for torture and death...

Mr. Judd, you should read what Mr. Brit wrote more carefully. Basic familiarity with English doesn't lead to your conclusion.

Anon:

He supports imprisoning them until they're dead. I support cutting to the chase without the tirture of imprisonment. He kids himself that he's the humane one.

Liptak would have us believe that this approach commits a grave injustice without any reference to the crimes committed. I beleive that the death penalty and life imprisonment are both justified for certain crimes. Injustices have crept in when these most severe punishments have been meted out for crimes which do not merit them, such as small scale drug dealing or possession.

First degree murder and child molestation are examples of crimes that do justify extreme punishment.

Yes, OJ is such a bleeding heart. It's quite shaming for the rest of us tough-guys.

I have merely observed that legal authorities in all countries frequently convict the wrong people.

Examples are legion, and unavoidable because people are fallible. They shouldn't be trusted with the death penalty because it is irreversible.

Brit:

How do reverse keeping the guy in jail until he's dead? Your point is fatuous.

My point was fatuous.

OJ, what are your views on abortion and pre-emptive war? Its okay, you don't need to reply; I think I already know.
Flip-Flopper?

FGH:

The guilty should be killed. The innocent shouldn't.

What a beautifully touching faith in the legal system.